Suchergebnisse

Collaborative programs among Federal agencies, state and local agencies, and private sector organizations are often prescribed to address difficult interdisciplinary and intersectoral problems. Accountability for these efforts is difficult to achieve and has frequently proved elusive. This research explores the nature of the accountability dilemma in collaborative programs and analyzes and illustrates them in the context of wildland fire prevention in the United States. It suggests a multilevel–multimeasurement approach is key to achieving a fuller picture of accountability in collaborative networks.

This article analyzes performance and organizational issues revealed by the governmental response to Hurricane Katrina. It reviews and analyzes the organizational changes made in the federal government to address homeland security and presents several proposals for reorganization suggested by policy makers in the aftermath of Katrina. A management approach rooted in adaptive management is presented for use in the ongoing process of organizing for homeland security.

Since the early 1990s, the Supreme Court has been issuing decisions that, taken together, constitute a new judicial federalism. This effort is rearranging intergovernmental relations as we have known them for several decades. However, the boundaries of this new doctrine and its implications for public administration are not well understood. This article analyzes the principal constitutional bases for the Court's actions and gauges the balance of this new judicial federalism. It then sorts out the implications for public administration and projects where the Court may be going with this doctrine in the future.

The 2000 presidential election exposed serious election‐administration deficiencies that affected the presidential election and the confidence of the American people in the way elections are administered. The ensuing controversies also exposed significant issues in judicial—administrative relations. This article examines the factors involved not only in Florida, but also in the nation, and discusses lessons for the future of election administration and for public administration generally.

Public services in many states have been placed under federal court supervision. In our 1991 PAR article, we examined the implications of the federal judicial decisions in supervising the Kansas City Metropolitan School District for the "new triumviate" governing public services—public officials, legislators, and judges. In this article, we examine judicial decisions affecting the same school district a decade later to reveal the impact of judicial supervision on the school district and to discern the implications for policy termination. We find that, once begun, judicially mandated federal court supervision of public institutions is not readily terminated, even pursuant to the wishes of the United States Supreme Court.

Improving the capacity of U.S. governments to provide greater homeland security will require numerous changes in the way federal, state, and local governments are organized and operate. It also will require significant alterations in intergovernmental relations. Changes will be required in intergovernmental dimensions, including operational, financial, legal, and political dimensions. A dual–track approach to rearranging intergovernmental relationships in order to provide a coordinated intergovernmental response to the requirements of homeland security is to be expected.

In several key rulings since the mid-1980s, the U.S. Supreme Court has begun to reshape the contours of regulatory takings. The emerging doctrine appears to reaffirm private rights in property, narrow the reach of governmental regulation, and extend the scope of judicial review. Despite their "muddled" transitional nature, these developments in the regulatory takings arena are sending a clear signal to public administrators to attend more carefully to the effects of their regulatory actions on private property rights. The purpose of this article is to analyze the key issues currently at play and point to some of the potential implications for the field of public administration.

This article examines initiatives for organizational reform in Swedish local government. The analysis investigates these initiatives in the context of reform efforts found in many modern democracies, with particular reference to the development of "new managerialism". An empirical analysis of local government reform decisions is presented in order to determine the principal objectives and direction of reform initiatives. The analysis reveals that management objectives are emphasized most, followed by economic objectives and then public interest objectives. The implications of these findings for future developments in Swedish local government are discussed.